Britain is planning to become the first country in the world to offer controversial "three-parent" fertility treatments to families who want to avoid passing on incurable diseases to their children.The methods, currently only at the research stage in laboratories in Britain and the United States, would for the first time involve implanting genetically modified embryos into women.Critics said the technique was ethically suspect and would eventually lead to a eugenic “designer baby” market.'It's only right that we look to introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can.'—U.K. Chief Medical Officer Sally DaviesIt involves intervening in the fertilization process to remove faulty mitochondrial DNA, which can cause inherited conditions such as fatal heart problems, liver failure, brain disorders, blindness and muscular dystrophy.The methods are designed to help families with mitochondrial diseases — incurable conditions passed down the maternal line that affect around one in 6,500 children worldwide. Mitochondria act as tiny energy-generating batteries inside cells.The potential treatment is known as three-parent in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because the offspring would have genes from a mother, a father and from a female donor.After a national public consultation showed Britons broadly favour the idea, the government's chief physician said on Friday it should be allowed to go ahead under strict regulation."Scientists have developed ground-breaking new procedures which could stop these diseases being passed on, bringing hope to many families seeking to prevent their children inheriting them," Sally Davies, chief medical officer, told reporters."It's only right that we look to introduce this life-saving treatment as soon as we can."But David King, director of the Human Genetics Alert campaign group said "the techniques are unnecessary and their use is ethically unsound" and criticized the government for failing to conduct a more comprehensive public consultation."They cross the ethical line that has been agreed by government around the world that we should not genetically alter human beings," he said in an emailed statement.Davies said the government's health department is drafting regulations to cover the new treatments and plans to publish them later this year. The move would make Britain the first country in the world to give patients an option of mitochondrial DNA transfer to avoid passing the diseases on to their children.

I grapple with this too. If it works, it sounds like a wonderful idea. But should a baby be born in a deformed state, then what??? Should things go seriously wrong and the baby have to die, then what? I've contemplated this and think we shouldn't toy around with nature.

Remember the Jurassic Park movies? I kind of saw some of them. What stood out to me was this one line: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” – Dr. Ian Malcolm

Personally, I don't think we should mess with nature, but I am sure we will.

I agree with Cat. It is just wrong. It's one thing for humans to design drugs to fight illnesses and/ or help others through various medical procedures. It is quite another to create 'designer' embryos via genetic manipulation of it. To me, this equals humans playing the role of the Creator, the Maker, of All Things.

Given that Souls make choices and one of those choices is choosing what conditions to be born into this genetic manipulation by way of three contributing adults becomes quite interesting to consider. Hmmm............

Hi Rose,Thank you, for posting this and for posing an important question.I have my own thoughts and questions on the possible aftermath regarding the soul and physical form of the child, general ethics, and social consequences but, paring it down to the study of astrology:

What is the significance of 3 bloodlines (versus 2) within a person? What is the significance of 2 mothers? (and how does this differ between, by orders of magnitude, egg donors, surrogates, and adoptions) Mitochondria are primary energy (ATP) producing organs within a cell, itself a world. (Interesting that the number of organs "happily" relate to the bodies within our solar system, see attached) What planet does a mitochondrion correlate to? Have you made any connections on the microscopic level? Hi Rad, did JWG say anything about possible relationships? I remember the DNA - Pluto correlation.

Hi Rose,Thank you, for posting this and for posing an important question.I have my own thoughts and questions on the possible aftermath regarding the soul and physical form of the child, general ethics, and social consequences but, paring it down to the study of astrology:

What is the significance of 3 bloodlines (versus 2) within a person? What is the significance of 2 mothers? (and how does this differ between, by orders of magnitude, egg donors, surrogates, and adoptions) Mitochondria are primary energy (ATP) producing organs within a cell, itself a world. (Interesting that the number of organs "happily" relate to the bodies within our solar system, see attached) What planet does a mitochondrion correlate to? Have you made any connections on the microscopic level? Hi Rad, did JWG say anything about possible relationships? I remember the DNA - Pluto correlation.

Thank you, andGod BlessKatherine

Hi Katherine,

Mitochondria correlates with Pluto, the 8th House, and the sign Scorpio. By involving three donors instead of two this then creates a genetic structure for the embryo that reflects the three donors instead of the two. This does not apply of course to adoptions. And that, indeed, is the issue that Rose has brought up: the ethics of it. Personally, this to me correlates with humans now playing the role of God/ess: a defacto Creator. And, to me, this is just wrong.

I think there are just so many issues on so many levels. It could take days to go through them all. The bottom line is Rad's point - we should not be playing God. I often think some, maybe most, scientists are arrogant. They strive to perfect nature but nature is already perfect. It is just when we toy with it that it does not seem so.

I once read something about Atlantis. I forget the source, maybe Cayce, maybe Alice Bailey, maybe someone else. What they said was that Atlantis self-destructed. Their own technology did them in. At first I imagined they created high tech weapons and had a massive world war and that was the end of all. But years later my thinking became a little more sophisticated and I started wondering if the technology that did them in was similiar to what scientist today want to do - tinker with nature - GMO plants and animals, genetic engineering, so on and so forth. Just one subtle mistake can bring the end to all.

Although its all fascinating, I'm against it. Whatever happens naturally (ie: a baby with an incurable disease), is what is intended. There is a reason for it and we need to just accept that. (Speaking on the Soul level, as yes, its horrible from the emotional level but....).

Greetings all,I think most of us feel exactly the same-it is just wrong, simply wrong, very, very wrong... Man playing god - this heads us down a destructive pathway for sure. I keep wondering, if the soul chooses the best biological atmosphere for its evolutionary growth, then what kind of soul would choose such a genetically manipulated atmosphere? I can only hope that the consciousness that is dreaming this one up chooses not to continue the investigation..